DENVER—Despite the driest March on record in nearby Denver, drought conditions didn’t exist in the Colorado foothills where firefighters set a controlled burn that later turned into a deadly wildfire.
An Associated Press examination of Colorado State Forest Service records Friday show burn boss Kevin Michalak noted there were no “unusual drought conditions” before the burn.
The so-called “Go No-Go” checklist was completed by Michalak for the planned burned March 22.
Documents released by the state forest service do not include any details about how Michalak determined there wasn’t a drought in the area. The federally operated U.S. Drought Monitor indicated there were no drought conditions for the area the day of the planned burn in the foothills near Conifer.
The checklist is a final step to ensure that conditions on the ground, the day of the controlled burn, are the same as expected when the burn was planned. It includes making sure there are enough people at the scene and nearby in case the fire gets out of control, whether residents have been notified, and includes a final check of the weather.
Too many concerns, and the burn boss can decide to cancel the burn.
No problems were noted that day, but the area became drier in the days after. The 50-acre prescribed burn to remove tree branches, logs and grass on land used by the utility that provides water to Denver’s residents flared up in strong winds, apparently killing three people, destroying more than two dozen homes, and scorching about 6 square miles.
Michalak, a firefighter who oversees the operation of a fire engine with the state forest service, did not return messages left at his home and office.
Nearby residents say the area had been dry and question whether the forest service should have conducted the fire. Two days after the controlled fire was lit, and two days before it began its destructive run, The Denver Post ran the front page banner headline “Denver high, dry in March.”
“It was just too volatile in those woods to have any fire burning in any shape or form,” said Coe Meyer, whose home was destroyed. He called the decision to have a controlled burn “unconscionable.”
“If the forest is a tinder box because of a lack of moisture, are they devoid of common sense?” he said. “When things are at that stage of dryness, who’s the rocket scientist that said we must have a prescribed burn? It certainly could have been rescheduled.”
Fire experts said the decision to light a fire is based on many factors that include lighting a fire in conditions where it will burn and remove the unwanted fuels—in this case branches, grass and some logs laying on the forest floor.
“It’s a very, very narrow window,” said Chris Dicus, professor of wildland fire fuels management at California Polytechnic State University in San Luis Obispo, Calif. The question, he said, is, “Can we get this burn off that achieves, that meets our objective and in general, what will happen a day or two after the burn?”
The question about drought, changes in fuel conditions, or other changes not considered in planning is so important to the state forest service that it’s the first question on the checklist, and answering “yes” has the potential to stop the planned burn.
“You don’t want it to be too dry or too wet,” said Ryan Lockwood, spokesman for the state forest service. “If everything doesn’t line up just right, then the burn won’t happen.”
A second box on the checklist regarding drought conditions was checked “yes,” indicating that changes had to be made to the original burn plan. It’s unclear whether that box was checked in error or if there were some conditions that had raised concerns and were documented. State forest officials were unable to provide that information or any documentation supporting any changes to the plan.
A four-person U.S. Forest Service team is reviewing how the controlled burn was planned and carried out.
Dan Smith, fire director for the National Association of State Foresters, noted that millions of acres of forest have had prescribed fires done in a safe manner.
“More important is the weather itself: wind, humidity, those kinds of things,” Smith said.
The weather changed over the weekend, and on March 26, the fire began its deadly run. Some residents calling 911 were assured that it was a controlled burn and that crews were on the scene. When firefighters asked for evacuations, automated telephone warnings at first went out to an area outside the affected area, adding to the confusion as residents called in wondering why they received the call with no fire nearby.
Some homes in the evacuation zone didn’t receive warnings because of a glitch in mapping software.
Emergency officials’ logs show the first structure that was reported destroyed burned down 20 minutes after a wave of calls went to residents in the evacuation zone.
According to logs that Jefferson County sheriff’s officials released Friday, an address was reported burned at 5:45 p.m. March 26.
Sheriff’s officials said the phone calls to evacuate were made around 5:25 p.m. to residents within two miles of where more than two dozen homes burned.
Call logs show someone connected to the burned address had called 911 dispatchers less an hour before the structure was reported “burned down.”
The address was near the home of Sam and Linda Lucas, who died at their burned home. It was also near the residence of Ann Appel, who also is believed to have died in the fire.
———
Associated Press writers Rema Rahman and Thomas Peipert contributed to this report.
